On 7 Nov 2002, Esther Yoder Strahan wrote: > > Yesterday I received my November 11, 2002 _Newsweek_. In it > there is an article (p. 50 in the American edition) entitled > _What Freud Got Right_<snip> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/829644.asp > > Anyway, I am having difficulty seeing any confirmation of Freud's > theories in the data mentioned. I see some confirmation of the role > of drives, which I don't believe are really in question. A sample > of the type of "logic" presented in the article: in a discussion of > how the ventral tegmental area is involved in "seeking," the article > states "To neuropsychologist Mark Solms of University College in > London, that sounds very much like libido." > > Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that it could equally > well "confirm" anyone else's work who ever focused on basic drives <snip>
Stephen Black replied: >I'm with Esther on this one. It's just one more big ho-hum claim to >find significance in Freud where there is none. A big problem with >Freud (no, make that _the_ problem with Freud) is that his work is so >vague and open to so many different interpretations that it's >entirely untestable. Any bit of research, no matter what it says, can >be interpreted post hoc to show that "Freud was right". By always >being right no matter what, Freud is always wrong: his theory isn't >science, but pseudo-science. Stephen�s point is germane to Freud�s use of the notion of �libido�. Mark Solms implies that for Freud libido was �a general, appetitive desire to seek pleasure in the world of objects�. Yes, sometimes it was (though why a woolly notion like this about human desires should be thought to be a profound discovery is a mystery). But Freud�s use of libido was highly elastic. Sometimes he was at pains to tell his readers that the �storm of indignation� against psychoanalysis was unjustified, because �in its origin, function, and relation to sexual love, the �Eros� of Plato coincides exactly with the love-force, the libido of psychoanalysis.� Indeed, when St Paul praised love above all else, he certainly understood it in this same �wider� sense. [�Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego�] Is this really the same libido that we find in the Unconscious uncovered by dream analysis, encompassing lusts for �incestuous objects,� a man�s mother and sister, a women�s father and brothers�. Not quite Plato�s Eros after all! The trouble with Solms� and Demasio�s invoking Freud as a precursor to modern neuroscience is that everything specific that Freud claimed is ignored, and vague generalisations are tendentiously linked to modern discoveries of brain function. There is little doubt that if current notions of brain function were to be replaced by something new, Solms will be the first to tell us that this still shows that �Freud was right�. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Dept Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
